Filed 1/31/18 P. v. Moses CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.

Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

In two separate cases, after pleading guilty to various theft and drug-related offenses, defendant and appellant Casey Wells Moses was granted formal probation on various terms and conditions. However, defendant continued to violate the terms and condition of his probation, and his probation was eventually revoked in both cases. Following a hearing, the trial court terminated defendant’s probation in both cases and sentenced defendant to state prison as follows: In case No. FMB17000124, defendant was sentenced to a total term of six years in state prison, and in case No. 16CR-055903, defendant was sentenced to a total term of three years in state prison to run concurrent with any other case. Defendant appeals from the judgment in both cases.[1] Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment in both cases.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2017, in case No. 16CR-055903, defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit petty theft (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)). In return, the defendant was placed on formal probation for three years on various terms and conditions of probation.

On February 23, 2017, a petition to revoke defendant’s probation was filed. The petition alleged that defendant violated the following terms and conditions of his probation: (1) cooperate and follow all reasonable directives of the probation officer; (2) violate no law; (3) keep the probation officer informed of place of residence and cohabitants and give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to any changes; (4) neither use nor possess any controlled substance unless prescribed to you by a medical professional; (5) not possess any type of drug paraphernalia; and (6) report to the probation officer in person immediately or upon release and thereafter as directed.

On March 1, 2017, defendant denied violating probation and a hearing was set for March 29, 2017.

On March 2, 2017, a felony complaint was filed in case No. FMB17000124 charging defendant with bringing controlled substances into a jail in violation of Penal Code section 4573. The complaint further alleged that at the time of the offense defendant had been on a grant of felony probation in case number 16CR-055903 within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.1.

On March 8, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, in case No. FMB17000124, defendant pled guilty to bringing a controlled substance into jail and admitted the enhancement allegation. In return, defendant was granted formal probation for three years in the drug court program on various terms and conditions. Defendant’s Drug Court Application and Agreement was filed on March 8, 2017.

On June 19, 2017, defendant was terminated from the drug court program for failure to comply with the court’s orders. The court also found defendant was no longer amenable to treatment at drug court. Thereafter, on that same day, in case No. FMB17000124, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years on the substantive count, plus two years for the enhancement allegation, for a total term of six years in state prison. Defendant was awarded 121 days of total presentence credit for time served (92 days of actual time plus 29 days of conduct credits),[2] and ordered to pay various fines and fees. In case No. 16CR-055903, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years for conspiracy to commit petty theft to run concurrent with any other case. Defendant was awarded 148 days of total presentence credit for time served (119 days of actual time plus and 29 days of conduct credits), and ordered to pay various fines and fees.

On July 17, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal as to both cases.

III

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed in both case Nos. FMB17000124 and 16CR-055903.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

FIELDS

J.